ADDMS GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES INC V WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ADDMS GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES, INC.,
Conservator for JEFFREY ALLAN, and BETH
ALLAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 1, 2007
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
No. 268443
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2005-064730-NH
v
WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL and
RIZWAN QADIR, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Jansen and Cooper, JJ.
JANSEN, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. “Generally, judicial decisions are given full retroactive effect.”
Adams v Dep’t of Transportation, 253 Mich App 431, 435; 655 NW2d 625 (2002). Where
injustice might result from full retroactivity, courts have at times given their holdings limited
retroactive effect or prospective effect only. Lindsey v Harper Hosp, 455 Mich 56, 68; 564
NW2d 861 (1997). Prospective application only is appropriate when a holding “overrules settled
precedent or decides an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly
foreshadowed.” Holmes v Michigan Capital Medical Ctr, 242 Mich App 703, 713; 620 NW2d
319 (2000). However, “[t]he fact that a decision may involve an issue of first impression does
not in and of itself justify giving it prospective application where the decision does not announce
a new rule of law or change existing law, but merely gives an interpretation that has not
previously been the subject of an appellate court decision.” Jahner v Dep’t of Corrections, 197
Mich App 111, 114; 495 NW2d 168 (1992).
This Court in Vega v Lakeland Hosp at Niles & St Joseph, Inc, 267 Mich App 565; 705
NW2d 389 (2005), did decide an issue of first impression. However, it did not overrule existing
case law or settled precedent. Nor did it announce a new rule of law; the law already existed as
codified by MCL 600.5851. Thus, the Vega Court was simply the first court to interpret the
language of the statute, and its result was clearly foreshadowed by the clear and unambiguous
language used by the Legislature. I would conclude that Vega applies retroactively and that the
trial court erred in ruling otherwise.
The parties agree that if Vega applies retroactively, certain aspects of plaintiffs’
complaint may be time-barred. However, they disagree regarding whether the notice of intent
-1-
provided sufficient notice of the allegations of malpractice. It appears that the trial court never
considered this issue. Because appellate review is generally limited to issues actually decided by
the trial court, Allen v Keating, 205 Mich App 560, 564-565; 517 NW2d 830 (1994), I would
decline to consider this matter and would remand for further proceedings.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.